Today is the day

[sppunk]

Originally posted by BlueStar



Yes, Dean was a distant 3rd in the Iowa caucuses...what the hell else do you call 34% for 2nd place and then 18% for 3rd place? Close? Dean was never distant in any of the Iowa polls. The polls and the caucus are two DIFFERENT things. All the Iowa polls during the last month leading up to the caucuses, no matter who landed where in that particular poll, had a margin of error of +/- 4%, which, in every poll, put all the candidates in a statistical dead heat. And I have never commented on any particular NH poll...which is where that 9% is being pulled from.

I was asking a serious question. Let's say Dean wins NH (which is still very possible), Kerry comes in 2nd, Clark in 3rd, Lieberman in 4th and Edwards in 5th.

The, S.C. comes around and Edwards wins (his neighborhood, basically), and Dean comes in 2nd? Who's the frontrunner then?

I think I'm staying out of this for now on, well, up until the first Super Tuesday.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by sppunk


His endorsement will give him a name in the state he doesn't have one right now. That's one less than anyone else, which can't hurt. Edwards I see is pulling a big nine percent, one up from Lieberman in NH, I wouldn't be surprised if that dropped and he came in fourth. And, if that happens, what happens? Again, I say, Super Tuesday decides it.

It is going to be a long while before any clear candidate pulls ahead and we know for sure who the nominee is. This primary race will go into March and possibly later. However, if Dean doesn't place 1st or a close 2nd in NH, he is done. Lieberman will be out after NH (though, he might stick around for OK). Clark will be looking rather bad if he doesn't pull out a 2nd or very close and strong 3rd place finish in NH. And Clark's fundraising numbers and sources are constantly being "delayed" for a reason. Once February comes, he won't legally be able to "delay" that stuff anymore and he will most definitely be losing support in all the rural areas and in a lot of southern areas when all that is revealed. Kerry doesn't even have offices in any other state right now other than NH (however, I would hope and assume that he has reopened his offices in SC). Edwards, Clark, and Dean have had offices in and been running tv ads in all the Feb. 3rd states for awhile now. Not having that groundwork already in place is going to hurt Kerry in those states.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by BlueStar


It is going to be a long while before any clear candidate pulls ahead and we know for sure who the nominee is. This primary race will go into March and possibly later. However, if Dean doesn't place 1st or a close 2nd in NH, he is done. Lieberman will be out after NH (though, he might stick around for OK). Clark will be looking rather bad if he doesn't pull out a 2nd or very close and strong 3rd place finish in NH. And Clark's fundraising numbers and sources are constantly being "delayed" for a reason. Once February comes, he won't legally be able to "delay" that stuff anymore and he will most definitely be losing support in all the rural areas and in a lot of southern areas when all that is revealed. Kerry doesn't even have offices in any other state right now other than NH (however, I would hope and assume that he has reopened his offices in SC). Edwards, Clark, and Dean have had offices in and been running tv ads in all the Feb. 3rd states for awhile now. Not having that groundwork already in place is going to hurt Kerry in those states.

See, I agree with everything you just said. Hell, Dean has a massive office in California, N.M. and even here in Texas. I've seen many Dean ads, whereas I have heard nothing from any candidate.

People, I think, will forget about Dean's speech after the Iowa caucus by the NH primary, and certainly before the S.C. one. If he can restate his beliefs and turn around his "angry man" public image, which is possibly, he'll be in decent shape. Kerry, though, has opened a S.C. office, and I think he actually never shut it down? I read that on his site somewhere, but yeah, he's going to be hurt by pulling everyone away from other states. But, he really has no choice but to play it state-by-state right now.

Clark's beginning to become a non-factor for some reason, which is unfortunate because he could pull the south more than anyone else.

[BeautifulLoser]

Originally posted by Nimrod


PS his appearance on the Daily Show yesterday was fantastic.

Yes. Hilarity ensued.

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
Even if Edwards did flipflop, that was 6 years ago.

That's what all the Democrat strategists are saying in their defense, but what ever happened to being held accountable for what you say while you're in public office, regardless of when it was said? I don't think it really matters that it was six years ago or whatever, he still said it, and he should be held accountable for anything he's said (especially something completely different than what he's saying now) if he said it while in office.

Instead of casting off blame by using such a weak defense, maybe they (or their PR folk) should actually be honest and candidly address their change in views.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by tweedyburd

Instead of casting off blame by using such a weak defense, maybe they (or their PR folk) should actually be honest and candidly address their change in views.

Which I'm sure they will...I'll let you know when the press release comes out.

Do you realize how chaotic it would be if everyone scrutinized every politician's record in attempt to find something they said a long time ago? You are aware of all the endless fumblings of the Repubs? Let's go ahead and bring every single one of those up and talk about it.

A flip-flop is politically thought of to be voting one way on something and then later voting another way on that same thing.

This was not a flip-flop. Edwards never cast a vote one way or another (and he has not made the issue of social security a central issue in his campaign...there is one line about it on one issue flyer).

When you look to criticize another politician, you look to their record (i.e. voting record or vocally strongly backing a specific piece of legislation or a long history/trend on being a particular way on a particular issue). This is none of those things...this is reaching for some dirt.

Without even seeing a press release, I bet the official Edwards campaign answer goes something like this... The people of the state of North Carolina blah, blah, blah... and then he talked with the people of other states blah, blah, blah... thought and reflected on the issue blah, blah, blah... did some research and talked to some experts blah, blah, blah... came to the conclusion blah blah blah... previous stance on social security bad blah blah now firmly believes that blah blah blah...

[tweedyburd]

Or how about John Edwards thought privatizing social security was a good thing..blah blah blah.. but after surfing around Washington and litmus testing mainstream liberal response... blah blah blah... he decided it was not in his political interest to favor it... blah blah blah.

I understand, and hey, I like Edwards. He's my second favorite in the primary, but you don't justify inconsistent policy choices by pointing to past similarities from the other side. You should be arguing how he transcends all that.

Besides, privatizing social security is a pretty big deal, and probably not some random bit you could dig up from some random politician being inconsistent on. And whether he cast a vote or not is not all that relevant. What's important is that he would've probably cast his vote THAT WAY if a vote was up on it at the time, considering his quotes.

If there's one good thing I can say about folks like Ted Kennedy, at least you know where he stands from the moment something like that enters the debate.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by BlueStar


Which I'm sure they will...I'll let you know when the press release comes out.

Do you realize how chaotic it would be if everyone scrutinized every politician's record in attempt to find something they said a long time ago? You are aware of all the endless fumblings of the Repubs? Let's go ahead and bring every single one of those up and talk about it.

Maybe as far as John Edwards' relatively brief political career is concerned, 6 years is "a long time" but the man is running for President, a position which he would want to hold for eight years. If he flip flops in 6, why wouldn't he during his tenure in office?

If six years is "so long" why are senators voted in for 6?

[severin]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Maybe as far as John Edwards' relatively brief political career is concerned, 6 years is "a long time" but the man is running for President, a position which he would want to hold for eight years. If he flip flops in 6, why wouldn't he during his tenure in office?

If six years is "so long" why are senators voted in for 6?

there is of course something you are forgetting. 6 years ago, the stocks where rising as hell, the internet bubble was blowing up and the stock market looked as fine as it can be. today however, after scandals like enron and such, the stock market has lost a lot of credibility. so the situation has changed. and when situations change, opinions can change.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by severin
there is of course something you are forgetting. 6 years ago, the stocks where rising as hell, the internet bubble was blowing up and the stock market looked as fine as it can be. today however, after scandals like enron and such, the stock market has lost a lot of credibility. so the situation has changed. and when situations change, opinions can change.

So then John Edwards is a sucker who didn't realize that investing in companies that show no profit is a bad idea and that the market is always cyclical?